Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / What Was the Main Idea Behind Frederick Taylorã¢â‚¬â„¢s Work on the Scientific Approach to Management?

What Was the Main Idea Behind Frederick Taylorã¢â‚¬â„¢s Work on the Scientific Approach to Management?

Post a Comment

Theory of management

"Taylorism" redirects here. For the philosophy of history coined by A. J. P. Taylor, run across Taylorism (history).

Scientific management is a theory of management that analyzes and synthesizes workflows. Its main objective is improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to use science to the engineering science of processes to management. Scientific management is sometimes known equally Taylorism after its pioneer, Frederick Winslow Taylor.[1]

Taylor began the theory'south development in the U.s. during the 1880s and 1890s within manufacturing industries, particularly steel. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s;[2] Taylor died in 1915 and by the 1920s, scientific management was still influential just had entered into competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas.

Although scientific management equally a distinct theory or schoolhouse of idea was obsolete past the 1930s, well-nigh of its themes are all the same important parts of industrial technology and management today. These include: analysis; synthesis; logic; rationality; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste; standardization of best practices; disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or to protect the social status of detail workers with particular skill sets; the transformation of craft product into mass product; and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools, processes, and documentation.

Proper name [edit]

Taylor's own names for his approach initially included "shop management" and "procedure management". Yet, "scientific management" came to national attention in 1910 when crusading chaser Louis Brandeis (and then not yet Supreme Court justice) popularized the term.[iii] Brandeis had sought a consensus term for the approach with the help of practitioners like Henry L. Gantt and Frank B. Gilbreth. Brandeis then used the consensus of "SCIENTIFIC management" when he argued before the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) that a proposed increment in railroad rates was unnecessary despite an increase in labor costs; he alleged scientific direction would overcome railroad inefficiencies (The ICC ruled against the rate increase, but likewise dismissed as comparatively substantiated that concept the railroads were necessarily inefficient.) Taylor recognized the nationally known term "scientific management" equally another good proper name for the concept, and adopted it in the title of his influential 1911 monograph.

History [edit]

The Midvale Steel Company, "i of America'south not bad armor plate making plants," was the birthplace of scientific management. In 1877, at age 22, Frederick W. Taylor started as a clerk in Midvale, but advanced to foreman in 1880. As foreman, Taylor was "constantly impressed by the failure of his [team members] to produce more than about i-third of [what he deemed] a good day's work".[4] Taylor determined to observe, by scientific methods, how long information technology should accept men to perform each given piece of piece of work; and it was in the fall of 1882 that he started to put the first features of scientific direction into operation.[4]

Horace Bookwalter Drury, in his 1918 work, Scientific direction: A History and Criticism, identified seven other leaders in the move, about of whom learned of and extended scientific management from Taylor's efforts:[4]

  • Henry L. Gantt (1861–1919)
  • Carl Chiliad. Barth (1860–1939)
  • Horace Grand. Hathaway (1878–1944)
  • Morris Fifty. Cooke (1872–1960)
  • Sanford E. Thompson (1867–1949)
  • Frank B. Gilbreth (1868–1924). Gilbreth'southward contained work on "motion report" is on tape equally early as 1885; afterwards coming together Taylor in 1906 and existence introduced to scientific management, Gilbreth devoted his efforts to introducing scientific management into factories. Gilbreth and his wife Dr Lillian Moller Gilbreth (1878–1972) performed micro-motion studies using finish-motility cameras as well as developing the profession of industrial/organizational psychology.
  • Harrington Emerson (1853–1931) began determining what industrial plants' products and costs were compared to what they ought to be in 1895. Emerson did non meet Taylor until December 1900, and the 2 never worked together.

Emerson's testimony in late 1910 to the Interstate Commerce Committee brought the motion to national attention[5] and instigated serious opposition. Emerson contended the railroads might save $1,000,000 a day by paying greater attention to efficiency of operation. Past January 1911, a leading railroad journal began a serial of articles denying they were inefficiently managed.[iv]

When steps were taken to innovate scientific management at the government-owned Rock Island Arsenal in early 1911, it was opposed by Samuel Gompers, founder and President of the American Federation of Labor (an brotherhood of craft unions). When a subsequent attempt was made to introduce the bonus organization into the government's Watertown Armory foundry during the summer of 1911, the unabridged force walked out for a few days. Congressional investigations followed, resulting in a ban on the utilize of time studies and pay premiums in Government service.[ citation needed ]

Taylor's expiry in 1915 at historic period 59[6] left the movement without its original leader. In management literature today, the term "scientific direction" more often than not refers to the piece of work of Taylor and his disciples ("classical", implying "no longer electric current, merely even so respected for its seminal value") in contrast to newer, improved iterations of efficiency-seeking methods. Today, job-oriented optimization of work tasks is nigh ubiquitous in industry.

Pursuit of economic efficiency [edit]

Flourishing in the late 19th and early 20th century, scientific direction built on before pursuits of economical efficiency. While it was prefigured in the folk wisdom of austerity, it favored empirical methods to decide efficient procedures rather than perpetuating established traditions. Thus it was followed by a profusion of successors in engineering, including time and motion report, the Efficiency Motility (which was a broader cultural echo of scientific management's impact on business managers specifically), Fordism, operations management, operations research, industrial technology, management science, manufacturing engineering, logistics, business concern process direction, business organisation process reengineering, lean manufacturing, and Six Sigma. At that place is a fluid continuum linking scientific management with the subsequently fields, and the different approaches often display a high degree of compatibility.

Taylor rejected the notion, which was universal in his day and still held today, that the trades, including manufacturing, were resistant to analysis and could only be performed by craft production methods. In the course of his empirical studies, Taylor examined various kinds of manual labor. For example, most bulk materials treatment was transmission at the time; material handling equipment as we know it today was more often than not non adult notwithstanding. He looked at shoveling in the unloading of railroad cars total of ore; lifting and conveying in the moving of atomic number 26 pigs at steel mills; the manual inspection of bearing assurance; and others. He discovered many concepts that were not widely accepted at the time. For example, past observing workers, he decided that labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue, either physical (equally in shoveling or lifting) or mental (equally in the brawl inspection case). Workers were allowed to take more rests during piece of work, and productivity increased as a event.[seven]

Subsequent forms of scientific management were articulated past Taylor'south disciples, such equally Henry Gantt; other engineers and managers, such as Benjamin Southward. Graham; and other theorists, such every bit Max Weber. Taylor's work also contrasts with other efforts, including those of Henri Fayol and those of Frank Gilbreth, Sr. and Lillian Moller Gilbreth (whose views originally shared much with Taylor's but subsequently diverged in response to Taylorism'southward inadequate handling of homo relations).

Soldiering [edit]

Scientific direction requires a high level of managerial command over employee work practices and entails a college ratio of managerial workers to laborers than previous management methods.[ commendation needed ] Such detail-oriented direction may crusade friction betwixt workers and managers.

Taylor observed that some workers were more talented than others, and that even smart ones were often unmotivated. He observed that near workers who are forced to perform repetitive tasks tend to work at the slowest rate that goes unpunished. This slow rate of work has been observed in many industries and many countries[8] and has been called by various terms.[eight] [9] Taylor used the term "soldiering",[8] [x] a term that reflects the way conscripts may approach post-obit orders, and observed that, when paid the same corporeality, workers will tend to do the amount of work that the slowest among them does.[11] Taylor describes soldiering as "the greatest evil with which the working-people ... are now afflicted".[7]

This reflects the idea that workers have a vested interest in their ain well-being, and do non benefit from working to a higher place the divers charge per unit of work when information technology will not increase their remuneration. He, therefore, proposed that the piece of work exercise that had been developed in near piece of work environments was crafted, intentionally or unintentionally, to exist very inefficient in its execution. He posited that time and motion studies combined with rational analysis and synthesis could uncover one best method for performing any particular task, and that prevailing methods were seldom equal to these best methods. Crucially, Taylor himself prominently acknowledged that if each employee'due south compensation was linked to their output, their productivity would go upward.[11] Thus his bounty plans usually included piece rates. In contrast, some after adopters of time and motion studies ignored this aspect and tried to get big productivity gains while passing little or no compensation gains to the workforce, which contributed to resentment against the system.

Productivity, automation, and unemployment [edit]

A machinist at the Tabor Company, a house where Frederick Taylor's consultancy was applied to practice, about 1905

Taylorism led to productivity increases,[12] significant fewer workers or working hours were needed to produce the same corporeality of goods. In the brusque term, productivity increases similar those achieved by Taylor's efficiency techniques tin cause considerable disruption. Labor relations often become contentious over whether the financial benefits will accrue to owners in the form of increased profits, or workers in the form of increased wages. As a result of decomposition and documentation of manufacturing processes, companies employing Taylor's methods might be able to hire lower-skill workers, enlarging the pool of workers and thus lowering wages and job security.[ citation needed ]

In the long term, about economists consider productivity increases as a benefit to the economic system overall, and necessary to better the standard of living for consumers in general. By the time Taylor was doing his work, improvements in agricultural productivity had freed upward a large portion of the workforce for the manufacturing sector, allowing those workers in plough to buy new types of consumer goods instead of working as subsistence farmers. In later years, increased manufacturing efficiency would costless upward large sections of the workforce for the service sector. If captured every bit profits or wages, the coin generated past more-productive companies would exist spent on new appurtenances and services; if gratis market contest forces prices downwardly close to the price of product, consumers effectively capture the benefits and take more money to spend on new goods and services. Either way, new companies and industries spring upward to profit from increased demand, and due to freed-up labor are able to hire workers. Merely the long-term benefits are no guarantee that individual displaced workers will be able to go new jobs that paid them as well or better as their one-time jobs, every bit this may require access to education or chore training, or moving to different part of the state where new industries are growing. Inability to obtain new employment due to mismatches like these is known as structural unemployment, and economists contend to what extent this is happening in the long term, if at all, every bit well equally the touch on on income inequality for those who practise find jobs.

Though not foreseen past early proponents of scientific direction, detailed decomposition and documentation of an optimal production method likewise makes automation of the process easier, especially physical processes that would later use industrial control systems and numerical control. Widespread economic globalization also creates opportunity for outsourced to lower-wage areas, with cognition transfer fabricated easier if an optimal method is already clearly documented. Especially when wages or wage differentials are high, automation and offshoring can upshot in significant productivity gains and similar questions of who benefits and whether or not technological unemployment is persistent. Because automation is ofttimes best suited to tasks that are repetitive and dull, and can too be used for tasks that are dirty, dangerous, and demeaning, proponents believe that in the long run it will free up human workers for more creative, safer, and more enjoyable work.[12]

Taylorism and unions [edit]

The early history of labor relations with scientific management in the U.S. was described past Horace Bookwalter Drury:

...for a long time in that location was thus little or no direct [conflict] betwixt scientific management and organized labor... [Yet] Ane of the all-time known experts once spoke to us with satisfaction of the manner in which, in a certain factory where at that place had been a number of union men, the labor system had, upon the introduction of scientific management, gradually disintegrated.

...From 1882 (when the organisation was started) until 1911, a period of approximately thirty years, in that location was not a single strike nether information technology, and this in spite of the fact that it was carried on primarily in the steel industry, which was subject area to a slap-up many disturbances. For instance, in the general strike in Philadelphia, one homo only went out at the Tabor plant [managed by Taylor], while at the Baldwin Locomotive shops across the street 2 thousand struck.

...Serious opposition may be said to take been begun in 1911, immediately afterward sure testimony presented before the Interstate Commerce Committee [by Harrington Emerson] revealed to the country the strong movement setting towards scientific management. National labor leaders, wide-awake as to what might happen in the future, decided that the new movement was a menace to their organization, and at in one case inaugurated an assail... centered about the installation of scientific management in the regime arsenal at Watertown.[xiii]

In 1911, organized labor erupted with stiff opposition to scientific management,[4] including from Samuel Gompers, founder and president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL).

In one case the time-and-motion men had completed their studies of a detail job, the workers had very picayune opportunity for further thinking, experimenting, or proposition-making. Taylorism was criticized for turning the worker into an "automaton" or "machine",[14] making piece of work monotonous and unfulfilling past doing i minor and rigidly defined work instead of using circuitous skills with the whole production process washed past 1 person. "The further 'progress' of industrial development... increased the anomic or forced sectionalization of labor," the contrary of what Taylor thought would be the effect.[xv] Some workers likewise complained virtually being made to work at a faster pace and producing goods of lower quality.[ citation needed ]

TRADE UNION OBJECTIONS TO SCIENTIFIC Direction: ...It intensifies the modern trend toward specialization of the work and the task... displaces skilled workers and... weakens the bargaining strength of the workers through specialization of the task and the destruction of craft skill. ...leads to over-product and the increment of unemployment... looks upon the worker as a mere musical instrument of production and reduces him to a semi-automated zipper to the machine or tool... tends to undermine the worker'south health, shortens his menses of industrial activeness and earning ability, and brings on premature onetime age. — Scientific Management and Labor,[16] Robert F. Hoxie, 1915 report to the Commission on Industrial Relations

Attributable to [application of "scientific direction"] in function in government arsenals, and a strike past the union molders confronting some of its features as they were introduced in the foundry at the Watertown Arsenal, "scientific direction" received much publicity. The House of Representatives appointed a commission, consisting of William B. Wilson, William C. Redfield and John Q. Tilson to investigate the organisation as it had been practical in the Watertown Arsenal. In its report to Congress this committee sustained Labor's contention that the system forced abnormally high speed upon workmen, that its disciplinary features were arbitrary and harsh, and that the employ of a end-watch and the payment of a bonus were injurious to the worker's manhood and welfare. At a succeeding session of Congress a measure [Hr 8665 by Clyde Howard Tavenner] was passed which prohibited the farther use of the stop-watch and the payment of a premium or bonus to workmen in government establishments.[17] — John P. Frey. "Scientific Management and Labor". The American Federationist. XXII (iv): 257 (April 1916)

The Watertown Arsenal in Massachusetts provides an example of the application and repeal of the Taylor system in the workplace, due to worker opposition. In the early 20th century, neglect in the Watertown shops included overcrowding, dim lighting, lack of tools and equipment, and questionable direction strategies in the optics of the workers. Frederick W. Taylor and Carl K. Barth visited Watertown in April 1909 and reported on their observations at the shops. Their decision was to employ the Taylor organisation of direction to the shops to produce better results. Efforts to install the Taylor arrangement began in June 1909. Over the years of time study and trying to improve the efficiency of workers, criticisms began to evolve. Workers complained of having to compete with one another, feeling strained and resentful, and feeling excessively tired after work. There is, notwithstanding, no evidence that the times enforced were unreasonable.[18] [ need quotation to verify ] In June 1913, employees of the Watertown Armory petitioned to abolish the practice of scientific direction in that location.[xix] A number of magazine writers inquiring into the furnishings of scientific management establish that the "atmospheric condition in shops investigated contrasted favorably with those in other plants".[20]

A commission of the U.S. House of Representatives investigated and reported in 1912, final that scientific management did provide some useful techniques and offered valuable organizational suggestions,[ demand quotation to verify ] but that it also gave production managers a dangerously[ how? ] loftier level of uncontrolled ability.[21] After an attitude survey of the workers revealed a high level of resentment and hostility towards scientific direction, the Senate banned Taylor's methods at the arsenal.[21]

Taylor had a largely negative view of unions, and believed they simply led to decreased productivity.[22] Efforts to resolve conflicts with workers included methods of scientific collectivism, making agreements with unions, and the personnel management movement.[23]

Relationship to Fordism [edit]

It is often causeless that Fordism derives from Taylor's piece of work. Taylor evidently made this assumption himself when visiting the Ford Motor Company's Michigan plants not too long before he died, but it is likely that the methods at Ford were evolved independently, and that any influence from Taylor's work was indirect at best.[24] Charles Due east. Sorensen, a master of the company during its commencement four decades, disclaimed any connection at all.[25] There was a belief at Ford, which remained dominant until Henry Ford II took over the company in 1945, that the world's experts were worthless, because if Ford had listened to them, it would take failed to accomplish its peachy successes. Henry Ford felt that he had succeeded in spite of, not because of, experts, who had tried to cease him in various ways (disagreeing about price points, product methods, machine features, business organization financing, and other issues). Sorensen thus was dismissive of Taylor and lumped him into the category of useless experts.[25] Sorensen held the New England machine tool vendor Walter Flanders in high esteem and credits him for the efficient floorplan layout at Ford, challenge that Flemish region knew cipher well-nigh Taylor. Flanders may have been exposed to the spirit of Taylorism elsewhere, and may have been influenced past it, simply he did not cite it when developing his production technique. Regardless, the Ford team patently did independently invent modern mass production techniques in the period of 1905–1915, and they themselves were not aware of whatever borrowing from Taylorism. Perhaps it is only possible with retrospect to see the zeitgeist that (indirectly) connected the budding Fordism to the balance of the efficiency move during the decade of 1905–1915.

Adoption in planned economies [edit]

Scientific management appealed to managers of planned economies because central economic planning relies on the thought that the expenses that go into economical production can be precisely predicted and can be optimized by design.

Soviet Union [edit]

Past 1913 Vladimir Lenin wrote that the "most widely discussed topic today in Europe, and to some extent in Russia, is the 'organisation' of the American engineer, Frederick Taylor"; Lenin decried information technology as simply a "'scientific' arrangement of sweating" more work from laborers.[26] Once more in 1914, Lenin derided Taylorism as "human being's enslavement by the machine".[27] However, after the Russian Revolutions brought him to power, Lenin wrote in 1918 that the "Russian is a bad worker [who must] learn to piece of work. The Taylor organisation... is a combination of the refined brutality of bourgeois exploitation and a number of the greatest scientific achievements in the field of analysing mechanical motions during piece of work, the emptying of superfluous and awkward motions, the elaboration of correct methods of work, the introduction of the all-time system of bookkeeping and control, etc. The Soviet Republic must at all costs adopt all that is valuable in the achievements of science and applied science in this field."[28]

In the Soviet Union, Taylorism was advocated by Aleksei Gastev and nauchnaia organizatsia truda (the movement for the scientific organisation of labor). It found back up in both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Gastev connected to promote this system of labor direction until his arrest and execution in 1939.[29] In the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union enthusiastically embraced Fordism and Taylorism, importing American experts in both fields as well as American technology firms to build parts of its new industrial infrastructure. The concepts of the 5 Year Plan and the centrally planned economic system tin can be traced straight to the influence of Taylorism on Soviet thinking.[ citation needed ] As scientific management was believed to recap American efficiency,[30] Joseph Stalin even claimed that "the combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism."[31]

Sorensen was one of the consultants who brought American know-how to the USSR during this era,[32] before the Cold State of war fabricated such exchanges unthinkable. Equally the Soviet Wedlock developed and grew in power, both sides, the Soviets and the Americans, chose to ignore or deny the contribution that American ideas and expertise had made: the Soviets because they wished to portray themselves equally creators of their own destiny and non indebted to a rival, and the Americans considering they did non wish to acknowledge their part in creating a powerful communist rival. Anti-communism had always enjoyed widespread popularity in America, and anti-capitalism in Russian federation, but later World War II, they precluded any admission by either side that technologies or ideas might exist either freely shared or clandestinely stolen.

East Germany [edit]

Photo of East German language car tool builders in 1953, from the German Federal Archives. The workers are discussing standards specifying how each task should be done and how long information technology should take.

By the 1950s, scientific management had grown dated,[ citation needed ] simply its goals and practices remained attractive and were also being adopted past the German Democratic Republic as it sought to increment efficiency in its industrial sectors. Workers engaged in a land-planned instance of process improvement, pursuing the same goals that were contemporaneously pursued in capitalist societies, as in the Toyota Product Organisation.

Criticism of rigor [edit]

Taylor believed that the scientific method of management included the calculations of exactly how much time it takes a man to do a item task, or his rate of work. Critics of Taylor complained that such a calculation relies on certain arbitrary, non-scientific decisions such equally what constituted the job, which men were timed, and under which weather condition. Any of these factors are subject to change, and therefore tin can produce inconsistencies.[33] Some dismiss and so-chosen "scientific management" or Taylorism as pseudoscience.[34] Others are critical of the representativeness of the workers Taylor selected to take his measurements.[35]

Variations of scientific direction after Taylorism [edit]

In the 1900s [edit]

Taylorism was i of the first attempts to systematically treat management and process improvement as a scientific trouble, and Taylor is considered a founder of mod industrial engineering. Taylorism may have been the first "bottom-up" method and found a lineage of successors that accept many elements in common. After methods took a broader approach, measuring not just productivity but quality. With the advocacy of statistical methods, quality assurance and quality control began in the 1920s and 1930s. During the 1940s and 1950s, the body of knowledge for doing scientific management evolved into operations direction, operations research, and management cybernetics. In the 1980s total quality management became widely popular, growing from quality control techniques. In the 1990s "re-engineering" went from a simple word to a mystique. Today's Six Sigma and lean manufacturing could be seen equally new kinds of scientific management, although their evolutionary altitude from the original is and then not bad that the comparison might be misleading. In particular, Shigeo Shingo, one of the originators of the Toyota Production Arrangement, believed that this arrangement and Japanese management culture in full general should be seen as a kind of scientific management.[ citation needed ] These newer methods are all based on systematic analysis rather than relying on tradition and rule of pollex.[36]

Other thinkers, even in Taylor's own time, also proposed considering the private worker's needs, not merely the needs of the process. Critics said that in Taylorism, "the worker was taken for granted as a cog in the mechanism."[37] James Hartness published The Human Gene in Works Management [38] in 1912, while Frank Gilbreth and Lillian Moller Gilbreth offered their ain alternatives to Taylorism. The human relations school of direction (founded past the work of Elton Mayo) evolved in the 1930s as a counterpoint or complement of scientific management. Taylorism focused on the system of the work process, and human relations helped workers suit to the new procedures.[39] Modern definitions of "quality control" similar ISO-9000 include not only clearly documented and optimized manufacturing tasks, but also consideration of human factors like expertise, motivation, and organizational culture. The Toyota Product Organisation, from which lean manufacturing in full general is derived, includes "respect for people" and teamwork as core principles.

Peter Drucker saw Frederick Taylor as the creator of cognition direction, because the aim of scientific management was to produce knowledge about how to improve piece of work processes. Although the typical application of scientific direction was manufacturing, Taylor himself advocated scientific management for all sorts of piece of work, including the management of universities and government. For case, Taylor believed scientific direction could be extended to "the work of our salesmen". Shortly subsequently his expiry, his acolyte Harlow S. Person began to lecture corporate audiences on the possibility of using Taylorism for "sales engineering"[40] (Person was talking nearly what is at present chosen sales procedure engineering science—engineering the processes that salespeople use—not about what we call sales applied science today.) This was a watershed insight in the history of corporate marketing.

In the 2000s [edit]

Google's methods of increasing productivity and output tin be seen to be influenced by Taylorism as well.[41] The Silicon Valley company is a forerunner in applying behavioral science (ref: Dan Pinks Motivations of Purpose, Mastery and Autonomy) to increment knowledge worker productivity. In archetype scientific management equally well every bit approaches like lean management where leaders facilitate and empower teams to continuously improve their standards and values. Leading high-tech companies use the concept of nudge management to increase productivity of employees. More and more than business organisation leaders start to make apply of this new scientific management.[42]

Today's militaries employ all of the major goals and tactics of scientific management, if not nether that name. Of the fundamental points, all only wage incentives for increased output are used past modern military organizations.[ citation needed ] Wage incentives rather announced in the form of skill bonuses for enlistments.[ citation needed ]

Scientific direction has had an important influence in sports, where cease watches and motion studies rule the day. (Taylor himself enjoyed sports, peculiarly lawn tennis and golf game. He and a partner won a national championship in doubles tennis. He invented improved tennis racquets and improved golf clubs, although other players liked to tease him for his unorthodox designs, and they did not catch on as replacements for the mainstream implements).[43]

Modern human resources can be seen to have begun in the scientific management era, most notably in the writings of Katherine M. H. Blackford.

Practices descended from scientific management are currently used in offices and in medicine (due east.g. managed care) every bit well.[41]

In countries with a post-industrial economy, manufacturing jobs are a relatively few, with about workers in the service sector. 1 approach to efficiency in information piece of work is called digital Taylorism, which uses software to monitor the performance of employees who use computers all solar day.

See also [edit]

  • American system of manufacturing
  • Cheaper past the Dozen
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Henry Louis Le Châtelier (1850–1936), industrial chemist and author of French language texts on Taylorism
  • Modern Times (moving-picture show)
  • The Pajama Game
  • Pandora'due south Box
  • Hans Renold (1852–1943), credited with introducing Taylorism to Britain
  • Stakhanovism
  • Theory X and Theory Y
  • Henry R. Towne (1844–1924), ASME President and author of the seminal The Engineer as An Economist (1886)
  • Words per minute
  • Exploitation

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ Mitcham 2005, p. 1153 Mitcham, Carl and Adam, Briggle Management in Mitcham (2005) p. 1153
  2. ^ Woodham 1997, p. 12
  3. ^ Drury 1918, pp. fifteen–21, 292.
  4. ^ a b c d east Drury 1918, p.[ page needed ].
  5. ^ Drury 1918, p. 129, "Emerson has done more than any other single man to popularize the bailiwick of scientific direction. His statement that the railroads could relieve $i,000,000 a day by introducing efficiency methods was the keynote which started the present interest in the subject. His books, Efficiency (a reprint in 1911 of periodical contributions of 1908 and 1909), and The Twelve Principles of Efficiency (1912), taken with his magazine articles and addresses, take perchance done more anything else to brand "efficiency " a household discussion."
  6. ^ "F. W. Taylor, Proficient in Efficiency, Dies". www.nytimes.com.
  7. ^ a b Taylor 1911, p.[ page needed ].
  8. ^ a b c Taylor 1911, pp. 13–14.
  9. ^ Taylor 1911, pp. 19, 23, 82, 95.
  10. ^ "Definition of SOLDIER". www.merriam-webster.com.
  11. ^ a b Taylor 1911, pp. 13–29, 95.
  12. ^ a b Von Berg 2009, pp. i–2.
  13. ^ Drury 1918, p. 197.
  14. ^ Drury 1915, pp. 195–198
  15. ^ Melossi, Dario (December 2008). Controlling Crime, Controlling Lodge: Thinking about Crime in Europe and America. Wiley.
  16. ^ Hoxie, Robert F. (1915). "Scientific Management and Labor".
  17. ^ Frey, John F. (April 1916). "Scientific Management and Labor". The American Federationist. XXIII (4): 257. Owing to its awarding in part in government arsenals, and a strike past the union molders against some of its features every bit they were introduced in the foundry at the Watertown Armory, "scientific management" received much publicity. The Business firm of Representatives appointed a committee, consisting of Congressman William B. Wilson, William C. Redfield and John Q. Tilson to investigate the system every bit it had been applied in the Watertown Arsenal. In its report to Congress this commission sustained Labor's contention that the system forced abnormally high speed upon workmen, that its disciplinary features were arbitrary and harsh, and that the apply of a stop-watch and the payment of a bonus were injurious to the worker's manhood and welfare. At a succeeding session of Congress a measure was passed which prohibited the further use of the stop-watch and the payment of a premium or bonus to workmen in government establishments. When the federal Commission on Industrial Relations began its piece of work it was decided that a farther investigation of "scientific management" should be fabricated, and Mr. Robert F. Hoxie, Professor of Economic science at the University of Chicago, was selected to undertake the piece of work... Mr. Hoxie was to devote a yr to his investigation, and... it was deemed advsiable that he should be accompanied by two men... One of those appointed was Mr. Robert G. Valentine [formerly Commissioner of Indian Diplomacy, but "at this time a management consultant in individual practice" co-ordinate to Aitken] The other expert was to be a trade unionist, and I [John P. Frey] was honored with the appointment.
  18. ^ Aitken 1985, p. 85
  19. ^ Drury 1915, p. 141
  20. ^ Drury 1915, p. 194
  21. ^ a b Mullins 2004, p. 70.
  22. ^ Locke, Edwin A. (1982). "The Ideas of Frederick Due west. Taylor: An Evaluation". The University of Direction Review. 7 (one): 14–24. doi:10.2307/257244. ISSN 0363-7425. JSTOR 257244.
  23. ^ Waring 1991, p. xiv
  24. ^ Hounshell 1984, pp. 249–253.
  25. ^ a b Sorensen 1956, p. 41 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSorensen1956 (help)
  26. ^ Lenin, 5.I. "Lenin: A 'Scientific' System of Sweating". www.marxists.org.
  27. ^ Lenin, V.I. "Lenin: The Taylor System—Man's Enslavement by the Car". www.marxists.org.
  28. ^ Lenin, Vladimir. "The Firsthand Tasks of the Soviet Government". www.marxists.org.
  29. ^ Beissinger 1988, pp. 35–37.
  30. ^ Hughes 2004.
  31. ^ Hughes 2004, p. 251, quoting Stalin 1976, p. 115.
  32. ^ Sorensen 1956, pp. 193–216 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSorensen1956 (help).
  33. ^ Aitken 1985, p. 21
  34. ^ For case: Yaszek 2002, p. 130, "Meanwhile, the pseudo-science of Taylorism justified heightened outside surveillance of the laboring trunk, positing a rational 'applied science of the productive man body' [...]. Significantly, Taylorism altered previous Cartesian notion of the body as a kind of working machine past redefining 'work' in the more narrow sense used in physics, as 'forcefulness working against resistance' [...]."
  35. ^ Henke, J. (2004). "Infoblatt Taylorismus. Frederick Winslow Taylor stellte Theorien zur Optimierung der Arbeit bzw. Unternehmen auf". Klett. Archived from the original on ane May 2012. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
  36. ^ Hebeisen, West. (1999). F. Westward. Taylor und der Taylorismus. Über das Wirken und die Lehre Taylors und dice Kritik am Taylorismus. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG. p. 188.
  37. ^ Rosen 1993, p. 139
  38. ^ Hartness 1912
  39. ^ Braverman 1998.
  40. ^ Dawson 2005.
  41. ^ a b Head 2005.
  42. ^ Ebert, Philip; Freibichler, Wolfgang (2017). "Nudge direction: applying behavioral scientific discipline to increase knowledge worker productivity". Journal of Organization Design. 6:4. doi:10.1186/s41469-017-0014-1.
  43. ^ Kanigel 1997

References [edit]

  • Aitken, Hugh G. J. (1985) [1960], Scientific Management in Activeness: Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal, 1908-1915, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, ISBN978-0-691-04241-ane, LCCN 84026462, OCLC 1468387. First published in 1960 past Harvard University Press. Republished in 1985 by Princeton University Printing, with a new foreword by Merritt Roe Smith. {{citation}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  • Beissinger, Mark R. (1988), Scientific Management, Socialist Discipline, and Soviet Ability, London, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, ISBN978-ane-85043-108-iv.
  • Bonazzi, Thou. (2014). Geschichte des organisatorischen Denkens. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
  • Braverman, Harry (1998) [1974], Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Deposition of Work in the Twentieth Century, New York, NY, USA: Republication by Monthly Review Press, ISBN0-85345-940-1.
  • Dawson, Michael (2005), The Consumer Trap: Big Business concern Marketing in American Life (paper ed.), Urbana, IL, USA: University of Illinois Press, ISBN0-252-07264-2.
  • Drury, Horace Bookwalter (1915). Scientific management: a history and criticism (Thesis). New York: Columbia University.
  • Drury, Horace Bookwalter (1918). "Scientific direction; a history and criticism". Studies in History, Economics and Public Law (Edited past the Kinesthesia of Political Science of Columbia University). New York: Columbia university. LXV (two).
  • Dumas, M., La Rosa, Thousand., Mendling, J. & Reijers, H. (2013). Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
  • Freriks, R. (1996). Theoretische Modelle der Betriebsgröße im Maschinenbau. Koordination und Kontrollmechanismen bei organisatorischem Wachstum. Opladen: Leske+ Budrich.
  • Hartness, James (1912), The man gene in works management, New York and London: McGraw-Colina, ISBN9780879600471, OCLC 1065709. Republished by Hive Publishing Company as Hive management history series no. 46. {{citation}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  • Head, Simon (2005), The New Ruthless Economic system: Work and Power in the Digital Historic period, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Printing, ISBN978-0-nineteen-517983-5.
  • Hebeisen, W. (1999). F.Due west. Taylor und der Taylorismus. Über das Wirken und die Lehre Taylors und die Kritik am Taylorismus. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG.
  • Henke, J. (2004). Infoblatt Taylorismus. Frederick Winslow Taylor stellte Theorien zur Optimierung der Arbeit bzw. Unternehmen auf. Leipzig: Klett Verlag.
  • Hounshell, David A. (1984), From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Academy Press, ISBN978-0-8018-2975-viii, LCCN 83016269, OCLC 1104810110
  • Hughes, Thomas P. (2004) [1989], American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870–1970 (2d ed.), Chicago, IL, United states of america: University of Chicago Press, ISBN978-0-fourteen-009741-2.
  • Kanigel, Robert (1997), The I Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency, New York, NY, The states: Penguin-Viking, ISBN978-0-670-86402-seven. A detailed biography of Taylor and a historian's expect at his ideas. {{citation}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  • Koch, Southward. (2011). Einführung in das Direction von Geschäftsprozessen. Berling Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
  • Laube, H. (2014). Arbeiten im Silicon Valley. Wann ist endlich wieder Montag? In: Der Spiegel.
  • McGaughey, Ewan, 'Behavioral Economics and Labor Police force' (2014) LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 20/2014
  • Mitcham, Carl (2005), "Management", Encyclopedia of science, engineering, and ideals, vol. iii, Macmillan Reference Usa, ISBN978-0-02-865834-6.
  • Mullins, Laurie J. (2004), Direction and Organizational Behavior (seventh ed.), Financial Times–FT Press–Prentice-Hall–Pearson Education Ltd, ISBN978-0-273-68876-one.
  • Rosen, Ellen (1993), Improving Public Sector Productivity: Concepts and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA, Usa: Sage Publications, ISBN978-0-8039-4573-9
  • Sorensen, Charles East. (1956), My Twoscore Years with Ford, with Williamson, Samuel T., New York, New York, USA: Norton, LCCN 56010854 . Various republications, including ISBN 9780814332795.
  • Stalin, J.V. (1976), Problems of Leninism: Lectures Delivered at the Sverdlov University, Beijing, People's republic of china: Foreign Languages Printing.
  • Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper & Brothers, LCCN 11010339, OCLC 233134 . Also available from Projection Gutenberg.
  • Von Berg, A. (2009), Humanisierung der Arbeit. Neue Formen der Arbeitsgestaltung als Determinante von Arbeitszufriedenheit am Beispiel teilautonomer Arbeitsgruppen, Göttingen: Georg-August Universität
  • Waring, Stephen P. (1991), Taylorism Transformed: Scientific Management Theory since 1945, Chapel Colina, NC, US: University of North Carolina Press, ISBN0807819727
  • Woodham, Jonathan (1997), Twentieth-Century Pattern, New York, NY, United states of america and London, U.k.: Oxford Academy Printing, ISBN0192842048, OCLC 35777427
  • Yaszek, Lisa (2002). "4: Of Fossils and Androids: (Re)Producing Sexuality in Recent Picture". The Self Wired: Technology and Subjectivity in Contemporary Narrative. Literary Criticism and Cultural Theory. New York: Routledge (published 2013). ISBN9781136716164 . Retrieved 2017-06-03 .

Further reading [edit]

  • Gershon, Richard (2001), Telecommunications Direction: Industry Structures and Planning Strategies , Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ISBN978-0-8058-3002-6
  • Morf, Martin (1983) Eight Scenarios for Work in the Future. in Futurist, v17 n3 pp. 24–29 Jun 1983, reprinted in Cornish, Edward and World Future Order (1985) Habitats tomorrow: homes and communities in an exciting new era : selections from The futurist, pp. 14–xix
  • Noble, David F. (1984), Forces of Product: A Social History of Industrial Automation, New York, New York, Us: Knopf, ISBN978-0-394-51262-4, LCCN 83048867.
  • Scheiber, Lukas (2012), Side by side Taylorism: A Calculus of Knowledge Piece of work, Frankfurt am Main, BRD: Peter Lang, ISBN978-3631624050
  • Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1903), Store Management, New York, NY, Us: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, OCLC 2365572 . "Shop Direction" began equally an accost by Taylor to a meeting of the ASME, which published it in pamphlet grade. The link here takes the reader to a 1912 republication past Harper & Brothers. As well available from Project Gutenberg.

External links [edit]

  • Special Collections: F.W. Taylor Collection. Stevens Establish of Technology has an extensive collection at its library.

meyereins1982.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management

Post a Comment for "What Was the Main Idea Behind Frederick Taylorã¢â‚¬â„¢s Work on the Scientific Approach to Management?"